safari_navigate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without explaining side effects (e.g., history, tab management, error handling), leaving agents unaware of consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is concise, but it is under-specified, missing essential details. Brevity is not helpful if it omits necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple action, the description should still explain how the URL is determined, what the expected behavior is, and any return values. Without this, the tool is not fully usable by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100% (no parameters), the description mentions a URL parameter that does not exist in the schema, causing confusion. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the misleading description warrants a lower score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Navigates) and resource (Safari) and object (to a URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like safari_click or safari_read_tab. However, it lacks detail on how the URL is provided, which is critical since the input schema has no parameters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like safari_go_back or chrome_navigate, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.